A report by RachelCasselman, NamrataKolla, & Daniel Milman Faculty Advisor: Dr. LauraEvans

June 2019

University of Washington EvansSchool of Public Policy

Preface   Before delving into issues of funding and access for urban American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) communities, we want to highlight our own positionality conducting this research and writing this report as non-AI/AN people. While our research shows why urban Indian organizations can and should receive more funding, we are aware that our non-AI/AN perspective may introduce biases and misrepresent the stories of AI/AN people. To ensure our report is as truthful and representative as possible, we did our best to consult with our project partners at the National Urban Indian Family Coalition (NUIFC) and their member centers to be aware of any biases introduced by our identities. We also try to reference books and media produced by or alongside AI/AN people as much as possible to allow AI/AN community members to speak for themselves. Having said that, please feel free to contact us using the information below should you have any questions or recommendations about how this paper can be improved.   Last but not least, we are very grateful to the Tucson Indian Center, Phoenix Indian Center, Native American Youth and Family Center, and Oakland American Indian Child Resource Center for offering their time, trust, and resources to make this project happen. Janeen Comenote (Quinault/Oglala/Hesquiaht/Kwakuitl) from NUIFC and Zeeba Khalili from Marguerite Casey Foundation were also instrumental to this project.   Thank you.   Rachel, rmcassel@uw.edu  Dan, dami2019@uw.edu Namrata, namkolla@uw.edu      

1 

Table of Contents  

RESEARCH PURPOSE & LITERATURE REVIEW 3 Introduction and Research Purpose 4 American Indian Identity in the City 5 Why Did American Indians Move to Urban Areas? 5 Experiences in Cities and the Growth of Urban Indian Organizations 7 The Need for Funding for UIOs 7

URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION PROFILES 9 Tucson Indian Center (TIC), Tucson AZ 10 Phoenix Indian Center (PIC), Phoenix AZ 11 Native American Youth & Family Center (NAYA), Portland OR 12 American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC), Oakland CA 13

METHODOLOGY 14 Introduction 15 Limitations to Collecting Financial Data 16 Direct v. Pass-Through Funding 16 About the ACS and Limitations Using the ACS for AI/AN Communities 17

OVERALL POPULATION & FUNDING STATISTICS 18 Population Size 20 Characteristics of Funding to Urban Indian Organizations 21 Funding Areas 26

FUNDING AND OUTCOMES BY SERVICE AREA 27 Education 28 Income and Unemployment 32 Housing and Homelessness 36 Healthcare 41

Conclusion 47

Works Cited 50

    

2 

          

RESEARCH PURPOSE & LITERATURE REVIEW 

    

3 

Introduction and Research Purpose 

Our study explores what kind and what amount of public funding is reaching American Indian-led service organizations, hereon referred to as urban Indian organizations (UIOs). We are motivated to track public funding (defined as funding from all levels of government and tribal organizations) because the Native-led nonprofit sector is extremely vital to communities across the country and continues to be heavily dependent on public sector grants and contracts for their work (First Nations Development Institute, 2015). Additionally, other sources of funding to UIOs and the important services they provide has been sparse or decreasing. For example from 2000 to 2009, foundation investment in Native American programs has been declining; only 0.3% of all grant dollars in 2009 were spent on programs for Native Americans (The Foundation Center, 2011).   1

 We make the case that public funding toward UIOs must be increased by showing the crucial role UIOs play for urban Indian communities. We specifically compare outcomes between urban American Indians and non-Hispanic White individuals in the same communities and discuss the services UIOs currently provide to address those disparities. The scope of this report is limited to four UIOs that are member centers of our client, the National Urban Indian Family Coalition, and the metro areas surrounding those four centers.   The structure of this report is as follows:  

● Important background for understanding urban Indian identity, the history of urbanization, and the role UIOs have come to play 

● Summaries of the four UIOs included in this report and the services they provide ● Methodology behind our funding and outcomes data analysis, and the 

limitations of our data sources and methodology ● Overall population and funding statistics for the four UIOs and metro areas ● Funding and statistics for four outcome areas: education, income and 

unemployment, housing and homelessness, and healthcare ● Final takeaways  

    

1 Note this is funding toward all Native American programs, not only those led by Native-led organizations.

4 

“When you know who you are; when your mission is clear and you burn with the inner fire of unbreakable will; no cold can touch your heart; no deluge can dampen your 

purpose. You know that you are alive.” - Chief Si'ahl, Duwamish & Suquamish (1780-1866) 

American Indian Identity in the City 

Organizations must be clear on who they are trying to serve when searching and applying for funding. Specifically, UIOs must define who qualifies as an “urban Indian” to determine the number of people they hope to serve and to estimate expenses. Defining who falls within their constituencies is also important for UIOs to mobilize collective action and to advocate for programs that benefit urban Indian communities at-large (Brewer, 1999, pp. 429–444). For most organizations, agreeing on the bounds of the targeted group is relatively easy. For UIOs, describing the target population is far more difficult because there is no universal definition for urban American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN).  In the ethnographic study Our Elders Lived It, Deborah Jackson describes urban AI/AN individuals as those who do and do not know their ancestors and those that have and have not always known they have Indian heritage. American Indians in a city may be connected to regional tribal groups, hail from geographically distant tribes, or may not have formal documentation describing their membership to a specific nation at all (Hartmann, Wendt, Saftner, Marcus, & Momper, 2014, pp. 72–80). Additionally urban AI/AN communities include people that may have recently moved from a reservation and people who have lived in the same city for generations. On top of these variations, AI/AN are the largest multiracial group in the US with over 68% of multiracial Americans being American Indian and a member of another race (“Multiracial Americans: Counting America’s Population,” 2015). As a result, each AI/AN individual’s identity is highly contextual to their ancestry, the community they live in, and how they were raised. Susan Lobo describes how the Oakland American Indian Center serves those living hand-to-mouth on the streets to those arriving in splendor at the gala annual American Indian Film Festival at the Palace of Fine Arts in San Francisco (Lobo, 1998, pp. 89–102). Given the enormous range of backgrounds, UIOs have an especially challenging task of creating spaces that welcome AI/AN from many identities and circumstances.  

Why Did American Indians Move to Urban Areas?  

There are a multitude of forces behind the migration of Native populations to urban areas. We briefly highlight a few policies important to this set of forces, but 

5 

recommend those unfamiliar with this topic to conduct their own research about the long and violent history between the United States and Tribal Nations and to prioritize authors who are Native themselves. American Indian Politics and the American Political System by Heidi Kiiwetinepinesiik Stark (Turtle Mountain Ojibwe) and David E. Wilkins (Lumbee) is one such resource that we relied on frequently.  One set of forces behind AI/AN migration within the US was brutal, non-voluntary, and led by the United States Federal Government. From the 1880s to 1930s, allotment and assimilation into White society were the dominant federal policies. In 1887, the Dawes Act (or General Allotment Act) sought to take lands away from Native people, to give those lands to non-Indians, and to extinguish tribal sovereignty. For example, there are countless instances of Anishinaabe people in the Great Lakes region leaving their homes during the off-season to go on hunting, trapping, or fishing expeditions or to sell craft items, and returning home to find that their property had been declared “abandoned” by local White officials and sold to non-AI/AN buyers (Jackson, 2002). There was pressure to adopt farming, to send American Indian children to boarding schools, and to learn “White” culture (Matthew Snipp, 1992, pp. 351–371). In 1935, the federal government completely reversed its policies and passed the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) to protect what remaining land bases American Indians had left and to encourage self-governance (Pevar, 2012). Still, some scholars have pointed out that even the IRA was paternalistic and ethnocentric by encouraging all tribal groups to adopt constitutions.   From 1953 to 1968, federal policy became one of termination and relocation. ‘‘Termination’’ referred to the idea that federal oversight over American Indian tribes and treaties would be ended and that tribal governments would be eliminated. For example, the Klamath tribe of Oregon had paid for almost all of their government services using revenues from their 1.3 million acre reservation, which included valuable timber and ranchland. After Congress passed the Klamath Termination Act in 1954, many Klamath Indians sold their land to the federal government and became increasingly impoverished over time. ‘‘Relocation’’ referred to moving AI/AN from reservations to urban areas on the assumption that cities could provide more jobs and resources than reservations. In reality, relocation was another tool of assimilation and many American Indians had difficulty adjusting to urban life, struggled to find work, and returned to reservations (Sreenivasan, 2009).  While federal policies were a major driving force behind involuntary migration into urban areas, there were some voluntary movements as well. For example, some American Indians who participated in World War II preferred, after coming back, to live 

6 

in urban communities over reservations (Matthew Snipp, 1992; Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). Unlike what non-Native people might expect, Chadwick and White found in their research with the Spokane urban Indian community that the decision to remain in the city or to return to the reservation was influenced to a greater degree by non-economic factors, such as acceptance of White culture, than by job opportunities or other economic considerations. While many forces pushed American Indians to enter and live in urban areas, assimilation was not easy and for some, continues to be difficult. 

Experiences in Cities and the Growth of Urban Indian Organizations 

Urban Indian organizations (UIOs) were created in a few selected cities by government agencies, like the Bureau of Indian Affairs, with the explicit purpose of finding American Indians jobs and assimilating them into the White community. In other cities, UIOs were created by the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act of 1976, which extended federally funded health care services to American Native and Alaskan Native (AI/AN) individuals in urban areas (“Indian Health Care Improvement Act | Medicaid.gov,” 2019).   However in most cities, UIOs were constructed from the outset by Native people to support one another. According to a report by the Administration for Children and Families, the primary purpose of most UIOs was and continues to be helping urban AI/AN individuals reconnect with their culture. UIOs also provide culturally-relevant social services ranging from housing to food assistance. UIOs helped the first waves of AI/AN individuals migrating to cities survive in the urban jungle by teaching community members how to buy appliances and acculturate to “gearing [their] entire day to a clock” (Britten, 2017). UIOs also act as a bridge to non-Native-led services if resources are unavailable in-house. Some urban AI/AN are hesitant to seek out non-Native-led social services for the aforementioned historical reasons, so having advocates and supporters through UIOs are critical for effectively receiving services (Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2014). 

The Need for Funding for UIOs 

When federal policymakers argued for policies to “encourage” AI/AN people to move off reservations, many made the argument that urban environments would provide higher living standards for emigrating AI/AN. On the contrary, urban migration did not drastically improve health, economic, education, and other statuses for many AI/AN. In 

7 

fact, many disparities have carried over generations and continue to exist today. As the statistics below show, many urban AI/AN communities continue to face disproportionate barriers (National Urban Indian Family Coalition, 2015):   

● 26% of AI/AN individuals live below the poverty level, compared to 13% of White individuals 

● 25% of AI/AN households receive food stamps, compared to 11% of White households 

● 6% of AI/AN households receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, compared to 2.3% of White households  

Urban Indian organizations (UIOs) are in a unique position to address these outcomes and prioritize the issues of urban AI/AN communities, but they are severely underfunded for the number of services they provide and the number of people they serve. For example, the Chicago Indian Center serves nearly 65,000 AI/AN, offers programs ranging from arts and archery to after-school programs and mental health counseling, but only operates out of one building in northern Chicago (“American Indian Center,” 2019).   There are many reasons that UIOs and the priorities of urban AI/AN are generally underfunded and rendered invisible to mainstream society and non-AI/AN communities. From a social-psychology perspective, many institutions and behaviors perpetuate the stereotype that American Indians only belong in the past and are not members of contemporary society through focusing on the colonial era in public education and exoticizing traditional regalia into costumes and mascots (Fleming, 2006; Lester & Ross, 2003). Given urban American Indians are the most interracial community in the US and have many intersecting identities, they face the additional challenge of “intersectional invisibility.” This phenomenon describes how people carry a natural bias of absorbing elements of complicated identities into different majority groups rather than capturing those identities as their own. Similar to how the narratives of AI/AN people are often misrepresented in history because of their intersectionality, their contributions to society are deemphasized as well (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach, 2008). For example, most history textbooks fail to recognize the influence of the structure of the Iroquois League of Nations on the drafting of the US Constitution (Murphy, 2019). Ignoring the historical contributions of American Indians reinforces the present lack of funding to their communities (Kolla, 2019).  The next section of this report delves into the UIOs working to make the priorities of American Indians in four cities more visible.  

8 

         

URBAN INDIAN ORGANIZATION PROFILES 

    

9 

Introduction  This analysis focuses on four urban Indian organizations (UIO): Tucson Indian Center (TIC), Phoenix Indian Center (PIC),Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA), and the American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC). The following profiles give a brief overview of each organization’s founding, mission, size, and programs. These profiles serve as a starting point to understand the sample of UIOs in our study as we delve more deeply into their public funding resources later in the report. For example, TIC and NAYA serve relatively similar sized metro areas--more than 50,000 and 54,000 AI/AN respectively--but TIC had $1.87 million in revenues in FY18 while NAYA had $11.6 million in revenues the same year. Consider also how PIC was one of the first UIOs founded in 1947 while the AICRC was founded around 1974. Readers should note the organizations’ differing histories, capacities to serve, and scope of services.  

Tucson Indian Center (TIC), Tucson AZ 

Founding  The center was founded in 1957 as the Native American Club. In 1963, the Club became incorporated as the American Indian Association, doing business as the Tucson Indian Center (“Tucson Indian Center,” 2019). 

Mission  “To lead, serve, empower and advocate for the Tucson urban American Indian Community and others, by providing culturally appropriate wellness and social services” (“Tucson Indian Center,” 2019). 

Approx. Number of Members Served 

50,764 (AI/AN Population in Tucson Metro Area, ACS 2013-17) 

Proxy for Size of Organization 

Total Revenues (FY18): 1.87 million Total Expenses (FY18): 1.86 million 

Major Programs  From TIC’s FY18 Financial Statement: ● Wellness - Provides health assessment and case management 

services, group and one-on-one educational workshops and activities, transportation services to and from the local Indian Health Service clinic and prescription medication pick-up and delivery services 

● Employment education and training - Provides employment services such as job development and education services such as vocational training assistance or referrals 

● Emergency services - Assists Pima County residents to prevent homelessness by providing mortgage/rental and utilities assistance 

● Leadership development - Funded by a grant from the Marguerite Casey Foundation to promote community mobilization within the Native American community in Tucson 

   

10 

Phoenix Indian Center (PIC), Phoenix AZ  

Founding   The Phoenix Indian Center is the oldest American Indian non-profit organization of its kind in the United States. The Center was formed in 1947 as an outgrowth of Native people moving to urban Phoenix not only to sell their crafts and goods but as a result of U.S. Government public policy (“Phoenix Indian Center,” 2019). 

Mission   “The Phoenix Indian Center develops a strong American Indian community through collaborative partnerships and providing quality, culturally based services” (“Phoenix Indian Center,” 2019). 

Approx. Number of Members Served 

143,249 (AI/AN Population in Phoenix Metro Area, ACS 2013-17) 

Proxy for Size of Organization 

Total Revenues (FY18): 2.70 million Total Expenses (FY18): 2.68 million 

Major Programs  From PIC’s FY18 Financial Statement and website (“Phoenix Indian Center,” 2019): 

● Employment - Provides job search services, employer speaker presentations, hiring events  

● Youth programs - Provides college and career readiness programs, mentorship, scholarships and grants  

● Social services - Provides cultural enrichment programs, language classes, seasonal story telling, festivals, prevention services 

    

11 

Native American Youth & Family Center (NAYA), Portland OR 

Founding  The Native American Youth and Family Center was founded by parent and Elder volunteers in 1974 to address problems with drugs, gangs, and school dropout among youth. One of the first Elders taught reading comprehension using Ahkwesahsne Notes, a Mohawk Nation newspaper. NAYA became incorporated as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization in 1994 (“Native American Youth and Family Center,” 2019). 

Mission  “To enhance the diverse strengths of our youth and families in partnership with the community through cultural identity and education” (“Native American Youth and Family Center,” 2019). 

Approx. Number of Members Served 

54,442 (AI/AN Population in Portland Metro Area, ACS 2013-17) 

Proxy for Size of Organization 

Total Revenues (FY18): $11.58 million Total Expenses (FY18): $12.03 million 

Major Programs  From NAYA FY18 Financial Statement:  ● Community development - Career skills and workforce programs, housing 

stability assistance, homeownership programs, Individual Development Accounts-matched savings, financial wellness classes, microenterprise classes, tax assistance, and continuing education 

● Youth services - Summer camps, college-to-career counseling and advocacy, culturally-specific programming, after-school recreation, individual support services, gang prevention, and homeless outreach 

● Family Services - Assistance to domestic and sexual violence victims, children in foster care, and Native Elders 

● NAYA Early College Academy - Blended high school and post-secondary curriculum for 9th through 12th graders, opportunities to earn high school and college credits, and partnerships with post-secondary institutions 

● Community engagement - Expands community capital by building leadership capacity and providing opportunities to strengthen the resources of current leaders 

● Affordable Housing - NAYA is single member of two limited liability companies providing low-income affordable housing: Sawash Housing LLC and Kah San Chako Haws, LLC; also wholly own subsidiary NAYA Generations Affordable Housing 

● Fiscal Sponsorship - Sponsors the National Urban Indian Family Coalition (NUIFC), Native Voice Network, and Portland All Nations Canoe Family 

    

12 

American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC), Oakland CA 

Founding  In 1972, a group of women helped organize and incorporate the Indian Nurses of California to assist families who felt isolated, disillusioned, and disenfranchised after being relocated from their reservations and their communities. In 1974, the group wrote the first grant to establish funding for what became AICRC, with specific focus on the prevention of child abuse and neglect (“American Indian Child Resource Center,” 2019). 

Mission  “To preserve and promote the integrity and culture of Native American Indian youth and their families" (“American Indian Child Resource Center,” 2019). 

Approx. Number of Members Served 

67,146 (AI/AN Population in Oakland-San Francisco Metro Area, ACS 2013-17) 

Proxy for Size of Organization 

Total Revenues (FY18): $1.13 million Total Expenses (FY18): $1.07 million 

Major Programs  From AICRC website (“American Indian Child Resource Center,” 2019): ● Youth Services - Tutoring, cultural enrichment, field trips, mentoring, 

workshops, therapy, traditional gardening and agriculture ● Family Support Services - State-licensed foster family agency, 

counseling, case management, cultural therapy groups ● Wellness - Child abuse and treatment, women’s health resources, 

culturally-relevant tobacco education and prevention  

 

    

13 

        

METHODOLOGY     

14 

Introduction 

Our project seeks to identify and to understand public funding to four urban Indian organizations (UIOs) in the following Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA): Tucson, AZ MSA, Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ MSA, Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro MSA, and San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA MSA.   We formed our initial pool of UIOs for this report by focusing on centers who are members of the National Urban Indian Family Coalition and/or grantees of Marguerite Casey Foundation. We then excluded Indian Health Service clinics because they are primarily focused on health services and funded by a separate, unique federal budget. Our clients were interested in UIOs that offer a greater variety of services and depend on numerous sources for public funding. While some of the UIOs in our study provide health services like counseling and therapy, healthcare was not their core purpose. Ultimately we narrowed down our analysis to four UIOs based on the organizations’ abilities to provide resources and support during the timeline of our project. While unintentional, our report focuses on UIOs in the American West and Southwest.   From each organization, we asked for auditor-reviewed financial statements for five fiscal years and any additional budgetary information that could help us in our analysis. We requested the most recent three fiscal years (2016, 2017, 2018) to understand short-term trends and two fiscal years further back in time to understand changes in the last decade (2010, 2012). Using these financial data, we identified trends in expenditures and analyzed to the best of our abilities how these centers allocated funding toward different service areas.   On top of tracking funding changes, we used the 2013-2017 five-year American Community Survey (ACS) to analyze related demographic, social, and economic outcomes of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) individuals in the MSAs surrounding the sample of UIOs. While metro areas are not perfectly representative of the number of AI/AN individuals served by each UIO, they were the best geographical boundary available in the ACS (see Appendix B for more information).   The outcome areas studied were educational attainment, household income, employment status, home ownership, homelessness and health insurance status. Almost every statistic revealed a wide disparity between AI/AN and non-Hispanic White communities. By displaying funding and outcomes together for this sample of centers, we conclude there is a strong argument for continued and greater public funding 

15 

toward UIOs and the important services they provide. AI/AN communities often face higher levels of disadvantage relative to White communities in the same areas and UIOs serve a critical purpose of reducing those disparities despite limited financial resources. 

Limitations to Collecting Financial Data   

Financial data for public funding were gathered differently for each center. For reference, we define “public” funding as funding from any level of government, government-funded body, or tribal government (e.g. federal, state, city, county, school board, state university). Ideally, we would have had a schedule of all governmental awards (not only federal governmental awards) for all of the centers. We were only able to retrieve this statement from the Tucson Indian Center (TIC).   We were able to approximate all governmental awards for the American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC) through their combined expenditures and revenues statement. However, it should be noted that this process is less reliable than if AICRC had organized a schedule of all governmental expenditures themselves. For the Phoenix Indian Center (PIC) and the Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA), we were only able to report federal funding that was directly received by these centers or passed-through other organizations. There was not enough information about funding received directly from other public organizations in order to conduct the majority of the analysis in this report. For further detail on the funding data behind this report, see Appendix C. 

Direct v. Pass-Through Funding  

Funding that originated from federal departments made up the majority of public funding to each UIO. In this report, we only classify awards UIOs received directly from the federal government as federal awards. Grants and contracts that were passed-through other organizations were classified under the pass-through organization instead. The federal government may choose to pass funds through a secondary organization (e.g. a state government, local nonprofit) for many reasons. First, pass-through funds allow the federal government to hand off the work of issuing and managing grants and contracts. Second, the federal government can often incentivize additional funding to an area by requiring matching funds from the secondary entity (“Pass-Through Activity- Reporting Requirements for Annual Financial Reports,” 2019).  

16 

When relevant, we classify awards received from pass-through organizations under the pass-through organization (rather than the federal government) because this is the organization to which UIOs would be applying for funding. For example, TIC’s $40,910 grant in FY09 for the Special Diabetes Programs for Indians--funding that originates from HHS--is classified under the Tohono O’odham Nation because the Nation was cited as the pass-through organization for the funding and TIC would have applied to the Tohono O’odham Nation for the grant. On the other hand, AICRC’s $3,750 grant in FY10 for the National Indian Women's Health Resource Center program is classified under the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) because it was a grant received directly from HHS and AICRC would have applied to HHS directly for the grant. 

About the ACS and Limitations Using the ACS for AI/AN Communities  

The 2013-2017 ACS provides information for a five percent sample of the US population. One percent of people are surveyed each year and the data are aggregated to create the five-year sample. While one-year samples would have offered more current statistics, the five-year sample has stronger statistical power by incorporating data from a larger sample size (The National Academies Press, 2019; University of Minnesota, 2019). Statistics about the population are projected from the sample using survey weights provided by the Census.  We use non-Hispanic Whites as the comparison population to AI/AN individuals because they are most representative of the majority population in the United States. Given the relatively small size of the AI/AN population, particularly in the Tucson Metro Area, survey weights may bias statistics about the larger community based on the experiences of a few individuals. Compounding this issue is the reality that many AI/AN individuals do not list their Native heritage when completing the census survey for a variety of reasons (“Who Counts? Identifying Native American Populations | HUD USER,” 2019). This means the samples in our studies may be undercounting the size of AI/AN communities.     

17 

         

OVERALL POPULATION & FUNDING STATISTICS 

 

   

18 

For the following figures and results, note:  

● "White" individuals are those who report being non-Hispanic White only.  ● "AI/AN" individuals are those who report being American Indian and/or Alaskan 

Native alone or in combination with other races. ● Population data are derived from the 2013-2017 American Community Survey 

unless otherwise stated. ● While the US Census Bureau has an elaborate methodology for reporting errors 

and imputing missing data, some data points are still labeled as “blank” (US Census Bureau, 2016). Other times certain questions are not relevant and labeled as “N/A”. Values reported in this report are out of the population for whom a response was indicated. In other words, data points labeled as “N/A” or “blank” were excluded before calculating proportions and percentages. 

● Financial data are derived from the financial statements urban Indian organizations (UIO) provided unless otherwise stated. 

● Where “average” spending is reporting, it is in reference to the average spending by the center across fiscal years 2010, 2012, 2016, 2017, and 2018. Financial data for fiscal years 2011, 2013, 2014, and 2015 are not included. 

● The following table summarizes how the full names of metro areas, their short forms, UIOs in our case study, and UIO acronyms correspond with one another. Note metro areas can include other UIOs that are not included in this study:  

 

Metro Full Name  Metro Area Short Form 

UIO  UIO Acronym 

Tucson, AZ Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Tucson Metro Area 

Tucson Indian Center  TIC 

Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Phoenix Metro Area  

Phoenix Indian Center  PIC 

Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Portland Metro Area  

Native American Youth and Family Center 

NAYA 

San Francisco–Oakland–Hayward, CA Metropolitan Statistical Area 

Oakland Metro Area  

American Indian Child Resource Center 

AICRC 

    

19 

Population Size 

Absolute and Relative Sizes of the AI/AN Communities in the Four Metro Areas 

  

Figure 1: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 

 The Phoenix Metro Area has two to three times as many AI/AN individuals than any other metro area in the sample, which suggests that the Phoenix Indian Center (PIC) has the potential to serve more people than all of the other centers. At the same time, the Tucson Metro Area has the highest proportion of AI/AN individuals in the metro area with 1 out of every 20 people reporting AI/AN as at least one of their races. The same period reported an estimated 5,487,131 AI/AN individuals in the country overall, so our sample only represents 5.8% of the national American Indian population.     

20 

Characteristics of Funding to Urban Indian Organizations 

Average Yearly Public Funding Received by UIOs 

 

Figure 2: Estimates depicting revenue received per capita for each relevant organization is also provided (Financial data provided to the authors by the participating organizations). 

 Funding per capita was calculated by dividing the total amount of public funding received by an urban Indian organization (UIO) by the number of AI/AN individuals in that metro area. Using the number of AI/AN individuals in the metro area is not a perfect estimate of the number of individuals served by each UIO, but getting accurate membership data from each UIO was not possible. It is difficult to count every person a center serves and to determine their nativity. Many AI/AN individuals may indirectly or infrequently benefit from UIO services (e.g. attending an annual Pow Wow). Additionally some individuals travel across state lines to visit a UIO because it is the nearest center to them. Given these nuances, the number of AI/AN individuals in each metro area is our best estimate of the number of individuals served by each UIO.   With regard to funding, it is evident that the funding received by each metro area does not align with the number of individuals projected to be served by that UIO. For example, PIC receives less funding than the Native American Youth and Family Center 

21 

(NAYA) even though the Phoenix Metro Area has the largest AI/AN community of the four metro areas. One reason for these discrepancies is that there may be other UIOs serving AI/AN communities in the same cities offering similar or complementary services with public funding. We did not gather data on the presence of other UIOs in the cities. Another contributing factor could be differences in how much non-public revenue these organizations are generating (e.g. foundation grants, fee-for-services). Foundation grants were a small portion of these UIOs budgets, however, a pattern consistent with the nationwide trend of scarce foundation support for American Indian organizations.  2

 Average Funding to Centers by Level of Government 

 

Figure 3: Financial data provided to authors by the participating organizations  Key: Tucson Indian Center (TIC), Phoenix Indian Center (PIC), Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA), American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC).  

Tucson Indian Center (TIC) and PIC are the most dependent on federal funding, though they receive some local, state, and tribal funds. The Department of Labor is the primary funder for PIC while the Department of Health and Human Services is the primary funder for TIC.   NAYA is mostly dependent on local funding, which we define as funding from city governments, county governments, housing authorities, and school boards. NAYA in particular receives a large amount of funding for housing and community development. NAYA is the single member of two limited liability companies providing low-income affordable housing--Sawash Housing, LLC (44 units) and Kah San Chako Haws, LLC (9 

2 For more, see First Nations Development Institute’s Growing Inequity: Large Foundation Giving to Native American Organizations and Causes, 2006-2014 and We Need to Change How We Think: Perspectives on Philanthropy’s Underfunding of Native Communities and Causes (First Nations Development Institute, 2018; Jessica Barron, Emily Hylton, and Micah Gilmer, 2018).

22 

units)--and they recently opened 40 more units in FY17. Housing expenses made up approximately 80% of their funding from local sources in FY18.   The American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC) is mostly dependent on state funding, though they receive some federal and local funds. The California State Department of Education and the Governor's Office of Emergency Services have been consistent funders of AICRC since FY10, while funding from the California State Department of Social Services has been growing considerably and made up the majority of state funding in FY18 (Appendix A).  The level of government each UIO is dependent on significantly impacts their internal processes. For example, federal grants and contracts generally require more work to submit an application, but the award is often magnitudes higher than state and local awards. In contrast, state and local grants and contracts may be easier to apply for, but they often require pooling multiple applications in order to reach the same value as a single federal award. Additionally advocating for federal funding may be more difficult because it requires influencing policymakers in DC. State and local policymaking processes and elections may be relatively easier to access. For example, our clients stated that NAYA has invested significantly in getting the American Indian community to vote in local elections, and the level of funding from local public sources is indicative of that effort.                 

   

23 

Aggregated Annual Funding by Level of Government  

 

Figure 4: Financial data provided by the participating organizations. Note x-axis is not evenly distributed and FY11, FY13, FY14, and FY15 are not shown in the plot. 

 Figure 4 shows that UIOs continue to be more dependent on the federal government than all other levels of government. Local government funding has been lower in recent years (FY15 to FY18) than in previous years (FY09 to FY12). Additionally in the most recent years, state government funding has slightly increased and tribal funding to these four UIOs has been at zero. It should be noted that most of these trend lines have one or two centers dominating their positions because of the small sample size: state funding is primarily representative of AICRC, local spending is primarily representative of NAYA, and tribal funding is primarily representative of PIC.   

   

24 

Average Annual Funding by Federal Department 

 

Figure 5: Financial data provided to the authors by the participating organizations.  

 The Department of Labor (DoL) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) are responsible for more than 80% of all federal funding. While TIC and PIC receive the largest amounts of funding from the federal government, they interact with relatively few federal departments. TIC and PIC receive funding from DoL and HHS, and PIC receives additional funding from the Department of Education and Department of Homeland Security. This is contrasted with NAYA, which receives far less funding from the federal government but from nine different federal departments and agencies. While applying for more grants and contracts requires more staff labor and time, NAYA is less dependent on any one source of federal funding compared to the other centers.          

25 

Funding Areas 

Average Yearly Funding by Area  

 

Figure 6: Average public funding by service area (Financial data provided to the authors by the participating organizations).  

 UIOs received funding for a variety of services with welfare being the largest spending area (2.6 million dollars annually by all centers, on average), employment and healthcare being the next largest spending areas (1.7 and 1.5 million dollars respectively), and education being the smallest spending area (769 thousand dollars). This broadly aligns with federal government spending in that 65% of spending by the US federal government in 2015 was in mandatory spending areas, which includes the major welfare, employment, and healthcare programs. Federal spending on education was only 6% of discretionary spending, which in itself is only 29% of total funding (“Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go,” 2019).  In the next section, we visit each funding area separately and delve into funding per capita in each metro and statistics about corresponding outcomes. We provide a picture of how AI/AN individuals and households are progressing in income, employment, healthcare, and education outcomes compared to White individuals in the same metro areas, as well as build a case for the importance of public funding for all of these service areas.    

26 

         

FUNDING AND OUTCOMES BY SERVICE AREA  

    

27 

Education 

High School Achievement by Metro Area 

 

Figure 7: 2013-2017 American Community Survey. Note this includes individuals with a high school diploma or equivalent (GED).  

 In all metro areas the percentage of AI/AN individuals with a high school diploma or higher is significantly lower than non-Hispanic White individuals. The disparity is greatest in the Tucson Metro Area where the percentage of White individuals with at least a high school diploma or equivalent is almost 30 percentage points higher than AI/AN individuals.          

28 

 Weekly Earnings According to Level of Educational Attainment 

 

Figure 8: 2013-2017 American Community Survey. These data are for persons over the age of 24 that are full-time wage and salary workers only. 

 Using data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, having less education is generally correlated with earning less income in the future. The figure above shows that having a high school diploma alone is correlated with an approximately $200 increase in median usual weekly earnings compared to someone without a high school diploma. Potential future earnings is one of many reasons that addressing disparities in educational attainment between White and AI/AN communities matters.    

   

29 

Average Public Funding to Education Programs and Funding per Capita  (less than or equal to 18 years old) 

 

Figure 9: Financial data were provided to the authors by the participating organizations. Per capita calculation is for AI/AN individuals in the metro area less than or equal to 18 years of age. Tucson Indian Center did not receive funding in this area.  

 All four UIOs provided education services to youth and adults such as after-school programming on the weekdays, college and career readiness programs, scholarship administration, tutoring, and FAFSA filing assistance. Tucson Indian Center (TIC) did not receive government funding for education programs though it does have tutoring and GED programs, presumably funded through other sources. The amount of funding received by the other three centers ranged between $150,000 to $450,000 annually. This amount equates to $7 to $25 received annually per AI/AN individual who is 18 years old or younger in their respective metro area.   While the educational programs UIOs provide also serve AI/AN individuals over the age of 18, we use this cut-off to provide a sense of scale against state-level spending on similarly aged individuals: state spending on each elementary-secondary school pupil for “pupil support” in fiscal year 2016 was $805 in Oregon, $670 in California, and $615 in Arizona (“Education Spending Per Student by State,” 2012). Standard “pupil support” describes the work of counselors, nurses, and disability specialists (“Pupil 

30 

Support Services Summary - Kidsdata.org,” 2019). Thus, funding for the additional culturally-relevant and often complementary educational programming that UIOs 

provide is less than five percent of what states spend on standard pupil support.   

31 

Income and Unemployment 

Median Income by Metro Area 

 Figure 10: 2013-2017 American Community Survey 

 Our analysis shows that the annual median household income for American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) households is lower than White households in all four metro areas. The difference ranges from $24,158 less in the Portland Metro Area to $49,515 less in the Oakland Metro Area. Across the four metro areas, AI/AN households receive approximately $30,941 less than White households on average. The Oakland Metro Area appears to be an outlier because median incomes for White and AI/AN communities are particularly high compared to the other three metro areas. However even in the Oakland Metro Area, AI/AN households receive about $24,750 less than White households. All together, these disparities suggest that AI/AN households are struggling more financially than White households in the same metro areas.  Tucson Indian Center (TIC), Phoenix Indian Center (PIC) and Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA) direct some of their revenues towards income assistance for its members. Income assistance can take many forms of providing additional cash to help families counter financial insecurity, such as income tax assistance and short-term rent assistance. NAYA receives the most funding for income assistance programs and 

32 

allocates, on average, $1.2 million of revenues per year towards such programs. PIC and TIC allocate far less for income assistance with an annual average of $29,191 and $32,590, respectively.   While income assistance is provided to help families overcome periods of financial insecurity, it is usually intended to be temporary assistance and, therefore, would not necessarily increase the overall median income of AI/AN households. However, employment programs, discussed in the following section, might seek to accomplish such a goal.   

Unemployment by Metro Area 

 

Figure 11: 2013-2017 American Community Survey. Note this is out of the population of individuals for whom data were available and are currently in the workforce.  

 AI/AN individuals have higher rates of unemployment compared to White individuals in the same geographic area and these differences are significant. In every metro area, unemployment among the AI/AN community is more than double that of non-Hispanic White community, which suggests that AI/AN individuals face higher difficulties in finding and maintaining consistent employment. Additionally, we expect that unemployment would be higher in metro areas with lower median incomes because having more unemployed persons in households would bring down areas’ household 

33 

median incomes. Unemployment rates among AI/AN individuals in our results meet these expectations.   Average Yearly Public Funding to Employment Programs and Funding per Capita  

 

Figure 12: Financial data provided to the authors by the participating organizations 

 All four centers receive funding for employment programs, though at varying levels. PIC and TIC have received the most consistent funding, reporting average annual expenditures of $1,118,163 and $332,848 respectively. AI/AN individuals in the Tucson Metro Area have the lowest annual median income at $39,346 and the highest unemployment rate at 17%. The AI/AN community in the Phoenix Metro Area reports the second lowest median income of $53,414 across all four metros and a high unemployment rate of 11.3%. Overall, AI/AN individuals and households are not earning or employed as much as White households. This could partially be due to a lack of access to additional training required by some higher paying jobs. For these and other cases, the workforce employment and training programs provided by UIOs could benefit greatly from increased public funding.  There were drastic changes in employment program funding for the American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC) and NAYA. AICRC received $168,000 in FY10 and 

34 

$195,138 in FY12 for employment programs but has not received such funding in the last three fiscal years. Due to this recent lack of funding, AICRC’s annual employment program funding average has decreased to roughly $72,627. Considering that AI/AN unemployment rate in Oakland is 10.7%, revitalizing AICRC’s employment program could help the local AI/AN community. NAYA’s employment program funding also dropped from $714,109 in FY10 to $69,976 in FY18--a 90% reduction. We were particularly surprised with this result considering that AI/AN individuals in the Portland metro area face the second highest unemployment rate of the four metro areas at 13.2%. Overall, these figures suggest an unmet need in employment assistance for AI/AN communities in the Oakland and Portland Metro Areas.   As noted in our limitations section, we recognize that other publicly funded, Native-led organizations in these metro areas may be offering employment programs to AI/AN individuals. Additionally, we cannot comment directly on how much increasing funding to the UIOs in this report would close these gaps. However, we also cannot rule out that increasing funding might help these centers and their AI/AN communities address the aforementioned disparities. For example, expanding job training programs could help more AI/AN individuals become eligible for well-paying occupations and increase household incomes.    

35 

Housing and Homelessness 

Many Americans consider homeownership as an important strategy for asset building. A house is often considered a safe investment for building wealth because it usually appreciates over time. Therefore, we use homeownership as another indicator for inequity because some groups may not have the same opportunities to build wealth through this asset. To measure homeownership, we used data from the American Community Survey (ACS) in which respondents recorded whether they were living in an accommodation that they owned, which includes those with current mortgages, or whether they were living in a rental.   

Housing: Renter Occupied vs. Owner Occupied  

AI/AN White 

 

Figure 13: 2013-2017 American Community Survey. Each bar represents the proportion of houses that are owned or rented by household heads of each race (AI/AN or Non-Hispanic White).   

 Similar to the income disparities, a greater proportion of White individuals live in a home that they either own or are buying than AI/AN individuals. Analogously, AI/AN individuals are more likely to occupy a rented home than White individuals. The Portland and Phoenix Metro Areas have the highest proportions of AI/AN homeownership, neither of which exceed 50%. On average across all four metro areas, 46% of the AI/AN community live in a house that they own compared to 68% of the White community. These results suggest that fewer AI/AN individuals and families have the opportunity to acquire and pass on wealth through homeownership.   

36 

In addition to homeownership, we examined the number of AI/AN individuals experiencing homelessness using Point-in-Time Counts. Point-in-Time-Counts are a Department of Health and Human Services single night census of the local homeless population.  

Homeless Point-in-Time Counts    AI/AN White

Homeless Population General Population

Homeless Population General Population

Maricopa County 311 117,087 3723 2,340,286

Multnomah County 424 19,725 2456 556,120

Alameda County 7 26,301 208 524,601

Pima County 3 50,764 188 529,936

Figure 14: Chart created using each counties’ Point-in-Time-Count data. “Homeless” individuals include those that are in emergency housing, transitional housing, Safe Haven, and unsheltered.  

Homelessness by County between AI/AN (left) and White (right) individuals 

 

Figure 15: Data are from each metro area’s main county’s 2017 Point-in-Time Count reports. Counties represent only a geographic portion of metro areas, but Point-in-Time Counts were only available at the county level. “Homeless” individuals include those that are in emergency housing, transitional housing, Safe Haven, and unsheltered. 

 Figure 14 shows that the number of homeless White individuals is higher than the number of homeless AI/AN individuals in all four counties. With that said, AI/AN individuals are overrepresented in the homeless population. In other words, there is a higher proportion of AI/AN individuals within the homeless population relative to the 

37 

proportion of AI/AN individuals in the general population. In Maricopa County, the proportion of AI/AN in the homeless population is nearly twice as high as the general population. The difference is even more extreme in Multnomah County. Although only representing 2.5% of the general population, AI/AN represent 10.15% of the homeless population.   In Pima and Maricopa Counties, the proportion of White individuals among the homeless population is higher than the proportion of those among the general population. Pima County has the largest discrepancy where the proportion of White people in the homeless population is 25% higher than the general population. Maricopa County’s proportion of White individuals in the homeless population is about 10% higher than the general population. However, in Multnomah and Alameda Counties, the proportion of White individuals in the homeless population is lower than the proportion of those in the general population.  Although the White populations within the general and homeless population are higher overall, we focus on the difference in magnitude and how AI/AN individuals are overly represented in the homeless population. Urban Indian organizations (UIOs) seek to reduce homelessness and increase housing ownership through services such as providing low-income housing and providing emergency shelter.   

Average Public Funding Revenues and Funding per capita  

 

Figure 16: Financial data provided to the authors by the participating organizations.  

 

38 

There were varying results in how much funding centers received for housing services. The Native American Youth & Family Center (NAYA) experienced significant declines in homelessness funding, Phoenix Indian Center (PIC) and Tucson Indian Center (TIC) experienced sporadic changes, and the American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC) has not received any funding.   Out of the four UIOs, NAYA receives the most funding for housing programs. As noted in Appendix A, NAYA received $2 million in funding for homelessness in FY10. By FY18, however, funding for homelessness dropped to $194,474, representing a 90% decrease. Given that NAYA has been building several properties that provide low-income housing, these fluctuations could have partially been due to construction timelines (e.g. a dip in funding after construction completed). On average, NAYA spends about $13.41 per person in the metro area for housing support. According to its website, NAYA’s housing programs address issues such as housing stability, rental assistance, and youth homelessness (“Native American Youth and Family Center,” 2019). Programs like these provide valuable assistance to those in need, and it is likely that the AI/AN community in the Portland Metro Area would benefit from increased funding to these housing programs.   PIC’s housing programs appear to more targeted towards emergency food and shelter. As seen in Appendix A, funding for these programs seems sporadic. On average, PIC has received about $37,908 annually for housing, which equates to about $0.26 per person in the metro area. PIC not owning any properties could explain the center’s lower funding levels. We noticed similar trends for TIC in that most of the housing funding received appears to be reserved for emergency situations, such as immediate sheltering or eviction prevention (Appendix A). On average, TIC has received about $11,986 per year for housing or $0.24 per AI/AN individual in the metro area. AICRC does not currently have a program that focuses on housing assistance. However, we should note that AICRC receives about $497,327 for programs that focus on foster care and child services, some of which includes foster placement. We omitted such funding from this housing section to focus on home ownership and homelessness.   Out of the four centers, NAYA appears to have the most established programs for housing issues with programs addressing issues beyond emergency sheltering. However, our analysis also revealed a decline in revenue to fund those programs and sporadic or a lack of funding to the other three centers. We believe all of these UIOs could better meet the needs of a homeless population that includes a disproportionate number of American Indians with increased funding to start or scale up existing housing programs.  

39 

Healthcare 

In addition to education, income, and housing, we studied private and public health insurance coverage among urban American Indian communities. The American Community Survey (ACS) defines private insurance as insurance provided through union membership, through an employer, purchased directly, or a form of military healthcare that is not Veterans Affairs (VA) healthcare, such as Tricare. Even though Tricare is government funded health insurance, the ACS includes it as private health insurance because the healthcare providers are private. While more details about private health insurance coverage (e.g. what services are covered, payment/deductible structures) would have provided a better understanding of the access and quality of health insurance coverage, these data are not included in the ACS and fall outside the scope of this analysis.   The ACS defines public health coverage as insurance provided through Medicaid, Medicare, VA, or the Indian Health Service (IHS). We report individuals covered by Medicaid instead of all public insurance options because it is a means-tested program that most directly indicates poverty. Other public health insurance options are either automatic or conditional. Medicare is automatic based on age of retirement or conditional on disability and certain types of medical conditions. Indian Health Service (IHS) coverage is only offered to individuals who can prove tribal enrollment which can be inconsistent and problematic given that some tribes are not yet federally recognized. VA services and insurance are conditional on certain types of injuries, location, priority, and disability rating. For these reasons, compared to Medicaid, these types of public health services are suboptimal for analyzing poverty-driven disparities between American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) and White populations.   

   

40 

Private Health Insurance Coverage by Metro Area 

 Figure 17: 2013-2017 American Community Survey  Note: Private health insurance includes Union, Employer,, Directly Purchased, and Tricare.   In each metro area there are significant disparities between AI/AN and White populations for private healthcare coverage. Tucson Metro Area has the lowest rate of coverage (33% for the AI/AN population, 71.1% for the White population) and the highest disparity (38.1 percentage points), and the Phoenix Metro Area has the next lowest rate of coverage (46.5% for the AI/AN population, 73.7% for the White population) and second highest disparity (27.2 percentage points). Oakland Metro Area has the highest rate of private health insurance coverage (64.5% for the AI/AN population, 84.1% for the White population) and a disparity of 19.6 percentage points. Private health coverage of its White population is also significantly higher than White communities in the three other metro areas. While the Portland Metro Area has lower private health insurance coverage rates (56.8% for the AI/AN population, 76.1% for the White population) than the Oakland Metro Area, the disparity between its AI/AN and White population is slightly lower.     

41 

Labor Force by Metro Area  

 Figure 18: Unemployment rate in above graph differs from figure 11 due to an expanded breakdown of the Labor Force data. (2013-2017 American Community Survey)  A possible explanation for the ordered pattern of private health insurance coverage among the four metros could be differences in local economies. Unemployment rate, among many other economic indicators, is one of the most commonly used and well understood indicators. When only considering the unemployment rate, Phoenix Metro Area appears to be the best performing economy with 4.89% unemployment among AI/AN individuals (Figure 18). It should be noted that the unemployment rate in Figure 18 differs from Figure 11 because it considers the entire labor force--discussed in more detail below. If the AI/AN population in the Phoenix Metro Area has the lowest unemployment, it should also have the highest private health insurance coverage rate because most private insurance options rely on employment. However, as seen in Figure 17, this is not the case.   We argue that among the statistics available in the ACS labor force data, the employment rate better explains ordered pattern of private health insurance coverage across the metro areas than the unemployment rate. The employment rate is a better 

42 

measure of private health coverage because it more precisely captures people who are receiving health coverage through their employer (Edward R. Berchick, Emily Hood, and Jessica C. Barnett, 2018). Furthermore, the employment rate is a better indicator 3

because it properly accounts for those who are chronically unemployed and who have given up looking for work. As unemployment is generally restricted to those who are actively looking for work, populations that have chronic unemployment, such as the AI/AN population, tend to have suppressed unemployment rates (“Native Americans and Jobs: The Challenge and the Promise,” 2013).  As expected, using employment rates as an indicator for local economic strength rather than unemployment rates better matches the ordered pattern in the private insurance coverage statistics in Figure 17. Tucson Metro Area has the lowest employment rates (35.5% AI/AN and 42.8% White) matching its low rates of private health insurance coverage. When using Phoenix Metro Area’s employment rate (37.4% AI/AN and 46.8% White) instead of its unemployment rate as a labor force economic indicator we see that once again it falls second to last among the studied metro areas. Portland Metro Area and Oakland Metro Area’s employment rates are closer together than their insurance coverage rates which could be due to how employment-based private insurance covers dependents and spouses, who might also be represented in the “not in the labor force”, “unemployed”, and other categories.  The ordered pattern of disparities between AI/AN and White populations in the four Metro Areas in private insurance coverage differs from disparities in employment rates. For example, disparities between AI/AN and White populations in private health insurance coverage is highest in the Tucson Metro Area and lowest in the Oakland Metro Area (Figure 17), but the opposite is true for disparities in the employment rate with Oakland Metro Area having the highest disparity (11.91 percentage points) and Tucson Metro Area having the lowest disparity (7.26 percentage points) (Figure 18). When comparing these opposing patterns in disparities, one could make the inference that it is not only disparities in the number of employed workers influencing disparities in private insurance rates, but also disparities in the quality of the jobs obtained by AI/AN individuals compared to White individuals. Certain types of jobs are less likely to provide private insurance (e.g. working below a specific number of hours). Data beyond the ACS would be needed to test this inference.   

   

3 Note this source from the U.S. Census Bureau considers Tricare a public health insurance program rather than private like the ACS.

43 

Medicaid Coverage by Metro Area  

  Figure 19: 2013-2017 American Community Survey.  Similar to private health insurance coverage, AI/AN individuals are consistently more likely to be covered by Medicaid than White individuals in the same communities. However compared to private health insurance coverage, disparities in Medicaid coverage between White and AI/AN individuals is more uniform. Tucson Metro Area stands out with the highest rate of Medicaid coverage among the AI/AN community (40.8%) and the largest disparity compared to the White population (26.78 percentage points). All of the other metro areas have approximately the same level of disparities (18 to 19.5 percentage points) and slightly different rates of public health insurance coverage. Unlike private health insurance coverage, there does not seem to be any matching patterns between employment rate and Medicaid coverage. Other factors related to poverty are probably better explanatory variables behind Medicaid coverage than the employment rate alone.  We expect the pattern of healthcare funding may follow the pattern of health insurance disparities (e.g. more funding toward metro areas where there are larger disparities between AI/AN and White communities). As predicted, we observe Tucson Indian Center (TIC) receiving the most healthcare funding and Phoenix Indian Center, Native American Youth and Family Center, and American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC) receiving successively less. TIC annually receives more than double 

44 

($1,114,575.80) what all other centers received combined ($460,127.93) (Appendix A). One contributing factor may be that TIC uniquely operates a health clinic.   

Average Public Funding and Funding Per Capita for Health & Wellness 

 

Figure 20: Average public funding allocated for health and wellness programs and funding per capita (AI/AN) across organizations with health and wellness programs. Financial data provided by the participating organizations.  

 Across all centers, healthcare funding is relatively stable and urban Indian organizations mostly have a diverse portfolio of grants and contracts for their healthcare programs. Healthcare funding sources generally fall into three main categories: Substance Abuse and Mental Health, Disease Prevention and Treatment, and IHS/Education/Social Services/Other. All four organizations received funding for Substance Abuse and Mental Health and Disease Prevention and Treatment. TIC uniquely received funding for all three categories (Appendix A).    

45 

Conclusion Our report outlines three important issues:  First, public sector organizations are responsible for many hurdles currently facing urban American Indian communities. Urban Indian organizations fill an important need helping American Indian communities overcome these hurdles.   Urban Indian organizations have an especially challenging task of creating welcoming spaces because there is no universal definition for an urban American Indian. American Indian individuals in the city vary greatly in their identities, but all come from communities that were (and continue to be) affected by public policies. UIOs were developed to provide support to AI/AN communities living in and migrating to urban areas. The most common purpose for their founding then and today continues to be helping individuals feel connected to their Native heritage. Feeling connected to one’s identity and culture has shown to be a foundation for education, employment, health, and general wellbeing, particularly among Native populations.  

 Second, each urban Indian organization has a distinct and unique portfolio of funding sources and programs.   Consider how centers receive the majority of their funding from one level of government: Phoenix Indian Center and Tucson Indian Center are primarily federally funded, American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC) is primarily state funded, and Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA) is primarily locally funded. Urban Indian organizations with a variety of funding sources are less vulnerable to changes in government budgets. However, there is a trade-off in that organizations must pool a number of state and local sources to reach the quantity of one federal award.   Each UIO also has their own specialties in the programs they provide. For example, NAYA uniquely owns and operates low-income properties and community development programs. AICRC was founded on the desire to reduce child abuse and neglect and continues to provide foster care support for children. PIC and TIC are the only centers to receive funding from tribal governments for multiple years and collaborate with state universities for education and important research on American Indian communities.   

46 

Despite all of these amazing programs, the average amount of public funding received by each urban Indian organization per American Indian/Alaska Native individual in their metro area is a meager $21. This suggests that urban Indian organizations often have to be creative with how they generate revenue from other sources, operate lean organizations with relatively few staff, and charge fees for some services.   Third, there continue to be stark and consistent disparities between urban American Indian and non-Hispanic White communities in education, housing, income, employment, and healthcare. As recipients of public funds, urban Indian organizations offer a unique opportunity for governments to use their programs and reduce these inequities.   Statistics from the American Community Survey reveal the following disparities between American Indian and non-Hispanic White communities in the same metro areas:  

● Lower rates of high school achievement ● Lower median household incomes ● Lower rates of home ownership ● Overrepresentation among homeless populations ● Higher rates of Medicaid coverage ● Lower rates of private healthcare coverage 

 Although each inequity presents a compelling story on its own, their combined impacts are even more negative and self-reinforcing. Low levels of educational attainment can make finding a job more difficult, which in turn impacts a person’s ability to afford housing and have access to healthcare. In other words, being in poverty makes it difficult to escape poverty.   UIOs provide essential resources and services that touch all of these inequities.  With their strong ties to the community, UIOs also offer support to AI/AN communities in ways that are more empathetic and culturally relevant than non-Native centers. In our analysis, the highest and least funded service areas are income assistance and education, respectively. Funding toward education has also been the least stable in the last three years. With more resources, UIOs could better and more efficiently meet the needs across all outcome areas. Although evaluating the impact of urban Indian organizations was not in the scope of this report, we observe that public funding supports crucial services for American Indian communities in all four metro areas. Continued or increased funding all levels of government would help support the 

47 

mission of these urban Indian organizations and American Indian communities across the United States. 

48 

Works Cited 

American Indian Center. (2019). Retrieved May 31, 2019, from American Indian Center 

website: https://www.aicchicago.org/ 

American Indian Child Resource Center. (2019). Retrieved May 31, 2019, from 

American Indian Child Resource Center website: http://www.aicrc.org/ 

Brewer, M. B. (1999). The Psychology of Prejudice: Ingroup Love and Outgroup Hate? 

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55, pp. 429–444. 

https://doi.org/ 10.1111/0022-4537.00126 

Britten, T. A. (2017). Urban American Indian Centers in the late 1960s-1970s: An 

Examination of their Function and Purpose. Indigenous Policy Journal , 27 (3), 1–18. 

Education Spending Per Student by State. (2012, February 9). Retrieved May 31, 2019, 

from 

https://www.governing.com/gov-data/education-data/state-education-spending-p

er-pupil-data.html 

Edward R. Berchick, Emily Hood, and Jessica C. Barnett. (2018). Health Insurance 

Coverage in the United States: 2017 (p. 10). U.S. Census Bureau. 

Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go. (2019). Retrieved May 31, 2019, from 

National Priorities Project website: 

https://www.nationalpriorities.org/budget-basics/federal-budget-101/spending/ 

First Nations Development Institute. (2015). A Case for the Native Nonprofit Sector: 

Advocating for Cultural, Economic, and Community Change. 

49 

First Nations Development Institute. (2018). Growing Inequity: Large Foundation Giving 

to Native American Organizations and Causes 2006-2014. 

Fleming, W. C. (2006). Myths and Stereotypes about Native Americans. Phi Delta 

Kappan , Vol. 88, pp. 213–217. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/003172170608800319 

Hartmann, W. E., Wendt, D. C., Saftner, M. A., Marcus, J., & Momper, S. L. (2014). 

Advancing community-based research with urban American Indian populations: 

multidisciplinary perspectives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 

54 (1-2), 72–80. 

Indian Health Care Improvement Act | Medicaid.gov. (2019). Retrieved May 31, 2019, 

from 

https://www.medicaid.gov/medicaid/indian-health-and-medicaid/improvement-act

/index.html 

Jackson, D. D. (2002). Our Elders Lived it: American Indian Identity in the City. DeKalb : 

Northern Illinois University Press. 

Jessica Barron, Emily Hylton, and Micah Gilmer. (2018). We Need to Change How We 

Think: Perspectives on Philanthropy’s Underfunding of Native Communities and 

Causes. First Nations Development Institute. 

Kolla, N. (2019). Urban Native Identity, the Challenges Created by Invisibility and Stigma 

for Native-Serving Organizations, and Interventions to Increase Funding and 

Resources (Masters; C. Hall, Ed.). University of Washington. 

Lester, P. M., & Ross, S. D. (2003). Images that Injure: Pictorial Stereotypes in the 

Media. Greenwood Publishing Group. 

50 

Lobo, S. (1998). Is Urban a Person or a Place? Characteristics of Urban Indian Country. 

American Indian Culture and Research Journal, Vol. 22, pp. 89–102. 

https://doi.org/ 10.17953/aicr.22.4.y12173126u68786t 

Matthew Snipp, C. (1992). Sociological Perspectives on American Indians. Annual 

Review of Sociology, Vol. 18, pp. 351–371. 

https://doi.org/ 10.1146/annurev.so.18.080192.002031 

Multiracial Americans: Counting America’s Population. (2015, June 11). Retrieved May 

31, 2019, from Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project 

website: 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/06/11/chapter-2-counting-multiracial-amer

icans/ 

Murphy, G. (2019). About the Iroquios Constitution. Retrieved 2019, from Modern 

History Sourcebook: The Constitution of the Iroquois Confederacy website: 

https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/iroquois.asp 

National Urban Indian Family Coalition. (2015). Making the Invisible Visible. University 

of California Agriculture and Natural Resources. 

Native Americans and Jobs: The Challenge and the Promise. (2013, December 17). 

Retrieved June 9, 2019, from Economic Policy Institute website: 

https://www.epi.org/publication/bp370-native-americans-jobs/ 

Native American Youth and Family Center. (2019). Retrieved May 31, 2019, from NAYA 

Family Center website: https://nayapdx.org 

Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation (OPRE), Administration for Children and 

51 

Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2014). Understanding 

Urban Indians’ Interactions with ACF Programs and Services. 

Pass-Through Activity- Reporting Requirements for Annual Financial Reports. (2019). 

Retrieved May 31, 2019, from 

https://fmx.cpa.texas.gov/fmx/pubs/afrrptreq/pass-through/index.php 

Pevar, S. L. (2012). The Rights of Indians and Tribes. Oxford University Press. 

Phoenix Indian Center. (2019). Retrieved May 31, 2019, from https://phxindcenter.org/ 

Pupil Support Services Summary - Kidsdata.org. (2019). Retrieved May 31, 2019, from 

Kidsdata.org website: 

https://www.kidsdata.org/topic/24/pupil-support-services/summary 

Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional Invisibility: The Distinctive 

Advantages and Disadvantages of Multiple Subordinate-Group Identities. Sex 

Roles , Vol. 59, pp. 377–391. https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4 

Sreenivasan, J. (2009). Poverty and the Government in America: A Historical 

Encyclopedia. ABC-CLIO. 

The Foundation Center. (2011). Foundation Funding for Native American Issues and 

Peoples . 

The National Academies Press. (2019). Using the American Community Survey: 

Benefits and Challenges. https://doi.org/10.17226/11901 

Tucson Indian Center. (2019). Retrieved May 31, 2019, from http://www.ticenter.org/ 

University of Minnesota. (2019). IPUMS USA. Retrieved May 31, 2019, from 

https://usa.ipums.org/usa/acs_multyr.shtml 

52 

US Census Bureau. (2016). Data Processing & Treatment of Nonresponse. Retrieved 

June 9, 2019, from 

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census/technical-document

ation/methodology/processing-nonresponse.html 

Who Counts? Identifying Native American Populations | HUD USER. (2019). Retrieved 

May 31, 2019, from 

https://www.huduser.gov/portal/periodicals/em/spring15/highlight2.html 

 

53 

        

APPENDIX A:  CENTER-BY-CENTER FINANCIAL DATA 

   

Tucson Indian Center (TIC)   Detailed Expenditures of Federal and Other Governmental Awards   2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Federal Government           

US Department of Labor           

Native American Employment and Training  $ 314,746  $ 326,142  $ 304,805  $ 300,742  $ 315,487 

Dislocated Worker National Reserve Technical Assistance & Training  $ -  $ -  $ 4,766  $ 2,986  $ - 

US Department of Health and Human Services           

Urban Indian Health Services  $ 485,283  $ 704,129  $ 801,832  $ 806,200  $ 874,255 

Office of Minority Health Resource, HIV Award  $ -  $ 6,824  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Demonstration Projects for Indian Health  $ 264,207  $ 106,702  $ 57,326  $ 108,947  $ 131,824 

Special Diabetes Programs for Indians - Diabetes Prevention and Treatment Projects  $ 136,121  $ 140,854  $ 152,020  $ 217,106  $ 189,505 

Health Profession Opportunity Grants  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 24,758 

State Government           

State of Arizona           

Veterans Donation Fund grant - (unknown type of program)  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 5,000 

Passed through University of Arizona           

Minority Health and Health Disparities Research  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Local Government (City, County, School Districts)           

Passed through Pima County Community Action Agency           

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Federal)  $ 43,652  $ 32,070  $ 23,718  $ 23,771  $ 28,400 

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (Other)  $ -  $ -  $ 3,544  $ 3,552  $ 4,244 

Community Services Block Grant (Federal)  $ -  $ -  $ 23,718  $ 23,771  $ 28,400 

Community Services Block Grant (Other)  $ -  $ -  $ 3,544  $ 3,552  $ 4,244 

  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018  2009-2010 

Emergency Eviction Prevention Program  $ 4,928  $ 5,000  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program  $ 22,935  $ 18,387  $ -  $ -  $ - 

State Housing Board  $ 8,681  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Pima County Health Department           

Tobacco Program  $ -  $ -  $ 51,000  $ 51,000  $ 46,726 

Passed through Pima County Human Resources Department           

Native American Employment Program  $ 20,000  $ -  $ 15,000  $ 15,000  $ 15,000 

Passed Through Pima County Vocational High School  $ 3,895  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Metro Education Commission (County + City org)           

College Access Challenge Grant Program  $ -  $ 9,498  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Tucson Unified School District           

ArtsResearch  $ 1,250  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Other Funding Sources (note: only organizations that are passing through federal awards)           

Passed through Phoenix Indian Center           

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services  $ 18,863  $ 48,000  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Minority Health and Health Disparities Research  $ -  $ 16,566  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Tribal/Native Governments           

Passed through Tohono O'odham Nation           

Special Diabetes Programs for Indians - Competitive Grant Program  $ 50,209  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Arts-Research  $ 200  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Inter-tribal Council of Arizona, Inc.           

Tobacco Program  $ 56,481  $ 50,899  $ -  $ -  $ - 

TOTAL  $ 1,431,451  $ 1,465,071  $ 1,441,273  $ 1,556,627  $ 1,667,843 

   

Expenditures by Level of Government   2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018  Average 

Federal Government  $ 1,200,357  $ 1,284,651  $ 1,320,749  $ 1,435,981  $ 1,535,829  $ 1,343,330 

State Government  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 5,000  $ 10,858 

Local Government  $ 105,341  $ 64,955  $ 120,524  $ 120,646  $ 127,014  $ 103,990 

Tribal/Native Government  $ 106,890  $ 50,899  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 43,811 

Other Organizations  $ 18,863  $ 64,566  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 17,158 

Total  $ 1,431,451  $ 1,465,071  $ 1,441,273  $ 1,556,627  $ 1,667,843  $ 1,519,147 

 Expenditures by Federal Department   2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018  Average 

US Department of Health and Human Services  $ 885,611  $958,509  $1,011,178  $1,132,253  $1,220,342  $1,055,836 

US Department of Labor  $ 314,746  $326,142  $309,571  $303,728  $315,487  $316,089 

Total  $ 1,200,357  $1,284,651  $1,320,749  $1,435,981  $1,535,829  $1,371,925 

    

Expenditures by Service Area   2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018  Average 

Education - General  $ -  $ 9,498  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 1,900 

Education - Social Services  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Education - Arts and Culture  $ 1,450  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 290 

Employment  $ 338,641  $ 326,142  $ 324,571  $ 318,728  $ 355,245  $ 332,665 

Healthcare - Substance Abuse and Mental Health  $ 75,344  $ 98,899  $ 51,000  $ 51,000  $ 46,726  $ 64,594 

Healthcare - Disease Prevention and Treatment  $ 186,330  $ 147,678  $ 152,020  $ 217,106  $ 189,505  $ 178,528 

Healthcare - IHS, Education, Social Services, and Other  $ 749,490  $ 827,397  $ 859,158  $ 915,147  $ 1,006,079  $ 871,454 

Welfare - Income  $ 43,652  $ 32,070  $ 27,262  $ 27,323  $ 32,644  $ 32,590 

Welfare - Housing and Food  $ 36,544  $ 23,387  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 11,986 

Welfare - Other  $ -  $ -  $ 27,262  $ 27,323  $ 37,644  $ 18,446 

Total  $ 1,431,451  $ 1,465,071  $ 1,441,273  $ 1,556,627  $ 1,667,843  $ 1,512,453 

     

Phoenix Indian Center (PIC)   Detailed Expenditures of Federal and Other Governmental Awards   2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018 

Federal Government           

US Department of Labor           

Native American Employment and Training  $ 1,269,255  $ 1,259,207  $ 833,029  $ 1,126,436  $ 1,102,890 

US Department of Health and Human Services           

Demonstration Projects for Indian Health  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 32,968 

US Department of Education           

College and Career Readiness  $ -  $ -  $ 229,510  $ -  $ - 

Indian Education - Special Programs for Indian Children  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 571,412  $ 442,217 

US Department of Homeland Security           

[National] Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program  $ -  $ -  $ 36,650  $ 78,000  $ - 

State Government           

Passed through Arizona Department of Education           

Adult Education - Basic Grants to States  $ 53,228  $ 58,206  $ 79,633  $ 79,633  $ - 

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services  $ 119,220  $ 271,393  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Arizona State University           

Research Projects, passed through Arizona State University  $ -  $ 86,358  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Magellan Health Services           

Block Grants for the Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse  $ 63,700  $ 101,808  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Mercy Maricopa           

Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse  $ -  $ -  $ 181,296  $ 154,550  $ 166,238 

Passed through World Hunger Education, Advocacy & Training (WHEAT)           

Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program  $ 74,890  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

  2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018 

Tribal/Native Governments           

Passed through Navajo Nation           

US Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Adult Education  $ 145,925  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Urban Trust Contract  $ -  $ 145,959  $ -  $ -  $ - 

TOTAL  $ 1,726,218  $ 1,922,931  $ 1,360,118  $ 2,010,031  $ 1,744,313 

    

Expenditures by Level of Government  2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Average

Federal Government $ 1,269,255 $ 1,259,207 $ 1,099,189 $ 1,775,848 $ 1,578,075 $ 1,396,315

State Government $ 311,038 $ 517,765 $ 260,929 $ 234,183 $ 166,238 $ 298,031

Tribal/Native Government $ 145,925 $ 145,959 $ - $ - $ - $ 58,377

Total $1,726,218 $1,922,931 $1,360,118 $2,010,031 $1,744,313 $1,752,722

 Expenditures by Federal Department  2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Average

US Department of Labor $ 1,269,255 $ 1,259,207 $ 833,029 $ 1,126,436 $ 1,102,890 $ 1,118,163

US Department of Health and Human Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 32,968 $ 6,594

US Department of Education $ - $ - $ 229,510 $ 571,412 $ 442,217 $ 248,628

US Department of Homeland Security $ - $ - $ 36,650 $ 78,000 $ - $ 22,930

Total $ 1,269,255 $ 1,259,207 $ 833,029 $ 1,126,436 $ 1,135,858 $ 1,124,757

    

Expenditures by Service Area  2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Averages

Education- General $ 199,153 $ 144,564 $ 309,143 $ 651,045 $ 442,217 $ 349,224

Education- Social Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Education - Arts and Culture $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Employment $ 1,269,255 $ 1,259,207 $ 833,029 $ 1,126,436 $ 1,102,890 $ 1,118,163

Healthcare - Substance Abuse and Mental Health $ 182,920 $ 373,201 $ 181,296 $ 154,550 $ 166,238 $ 211,641

Healthcare - Disease Prevention and Treatment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Healthcare - IHS, Education, Social Services, and Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 32,968 $ 6,594

Welfare - Income $ - $ 145,959 $ - $ - $ - $ 29,192

Welfare - Housing and Food $ 74,890 $ - $ 36,650 $ 78,000 $ - $ 37,908

Welfare - Other $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total $ 1,726,218 $ 1,922,931 $ 1,360,118 $ 2,010,031 $ 1,744,313 $ 1,752,722

     

Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA)   Detailed Expenditures of Federal Awards    2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018 

Federal Government           

US Department of Health and Human Services           

Native American Programs  $ -  $ 157,976  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Administration for Native Americans Life Skills Development & Economic Sector Project (LSD)  $ 418,199  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

US Department of Education           

Indian Education - Special Programs for Indian Children  $ -  $ 276,569  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Special Projects: Indian Demonstration College Readiness through Assessment and Enrichment  $ 252,632  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

National Endowment of the Arts           

Young Native Playwrights Project Mentor Artists Playwright Project  $ 18,000  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

US Forest Service           

Gifford Pinchot National Forest Multi-cultural Youth Enrichment & Education  $ 6,538  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

US Department of Agriculture           

Forestry Research  $ -  $ 18,415  $ -  $ -  $ - 

National School Lunch Program  $ -  $ 109,745  $ 30,307  $ 22,626  $ - 

Summer Food Service Program for Children  $ -  $ -  $ 13,375  $ 5,783  $ - 

Child and Adult Care Food Program  $ -  $ -  $ 8,163  $ 22,102  $ - 

US Department of Justice           

ARRA - Violence Against Women Formula Grants  $ -  $ 17,832  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Supporting Teens through Education and Protection Act of 2005  $ -  $ 22,759  $ -  $ -  $ - 

  2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018 

Services, Training, Education and Policies to Reduce Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, and Stalking in Secondary Schools (STEP) Grant Program  $ -  $ -  $ 46,527  $ -  $ - 

US Department of the Treasury           

Volunteer Income Tax Assistance (VITA) Matching Grant Program  $ -  $ 13,750  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Community Development Financial Institutions Program  $ -  $ 23,297  $ -  $ -  $ - 

US Department of Housing and Urban Development           

Housing Counseling Assistance Program  $ -  $ 35,048  $ 12,386  $ 12,520  $ 14,655 

US Department of Veterans Affairs           

Supportive Services for Veteran Families - Transition Project  $ -  $ -  $ 242,455  $ 102,947  $ - 

State Government           

Passed through Oregon Office of Homeland Security           

Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) 08-09  $ 5,955  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) 09-10  $ 10,614  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Stop Violence Against Women (VAWA)  $ 16,472  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through State of Oregon, Department of Justice           

ARRA - Pregnancy Assistance Fund Program  $ -  $ 52,219  $ -  $ -  $ - 

ARRA - Violence against Women Formula Grants  $ -  $ -  $ 18,128  $ 16,890  $ 18,128 

Crime Victim Assistance  $ -  $ 11,043  $ 22,733  $ 28,223  $ 30,222 

Passed through State of Oregon, Department of Education           

National School Lunch Program  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 23,164 

Summer Food Service Program for Children  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 8,825 

Social Services Block Grant  $ -  $ -  $ 25,375  $ 76,613  $ - 

Child and Adult Care Food Program  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 8,647 

Passed through State of Oregon, Department of Human Services           

Family Violence Protection, Domestic Violence Shelter, Supportive Services  $ -  $ -  $ 15,595  $ 16,005  $ 15,631 

  2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018 

Passed through State of Oregon, Department of Agriculture           

Farm to School Training and Technical Assistance  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 2,661  $ - 

Local Government (City, County, School Districts)           

Passed through Multnomah County           

Administration for Children and Familiies ARRA - Action for Prosperity - CSBG  $ 43,585  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Block Grant - Anti-Poverty Case Management Services  $ 14,025  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Multnomah County, Department of Health           

Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program  $ -  $ -  $ 48,750  $ 65,000  $ 35,753 

Maternal & Child Health Services Block Grants  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 1,967  $ - 

Passed through Multnomah County, SUN Service System           

Social Services Block Grant  $ -  $ 54,377  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Multnomah County, Department of County Human Services/Department of Community Services+Aging and Disability Services/Department of Social Services           

Block Grant - Social Support Services for Education Success  $ 31,860  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Block Grant - Social Services  $ -  $ -  $ 108,780  $ 117,956  $ 49,181 

Block Grant - Community Services  $ -  $ 38,280  $ 28,058  $ 48,446  $ 61,490 

Family Futures Supportive Housing Program  $ 80,756  $ 83,100  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Continuum of Care Program  $ -  $ -  $ 67,102  $ -  $ - 

WIC Grants to States  $ -  $ 4,268  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Special Programs for the Aging Title III, Part B, Grants for Supportive Services and Senior Centers  $ -  $ 3,419  $ 5,775  $ 15,392  $ 20,332 

Special Programs for the Aging Title III, Part C, Nutrition Services  $ -  $ 9,230  $ 3,336  $ 5,550  $ 9,716 

Nutrition Services Incentive Program  $ -  $ 859  $ 257  $ 995  $ 1,036 

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance  $ -  $ 20,299  $ 21,977  $ 31,019  $ 28,836 

  2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018 

ARRA - Prevention and Wellness-Communities Putting Prevention to Work Funding Opportunities Announcement  $ -  $ 26,485  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Promoting Safe and Stable Families  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 46,846  $ 38,049 

Community-Based Violence Prevention Program  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 52,654 

Education, Training, and Enhanced Services to End Violence Against and Abuse Abuse of Women with Disabilities  $ -  $ -  $ 6,447  $ 6,207  $ 5,339 

Passed through City of Portland           

Native American Youth Employment Services (NAYES)  $ 184,444  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Permanent Supportive Housing (PSH) Equity Gap, Outstanding Loan Balance, Sawash  $ 1,791,674  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Affordable Housing Development  $ 15,000  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

ARRA - Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program/Grants to Units of Local Government  $ -  $ 48,407  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through City of Portland, Home Forward           

Emergency Solutions Grant Program  $ -  $ -  $ 101,284  $ 88,098  $ 22,166 

HOME Investment Partnerships Program  $ -  $ 10,000  $ 76,684  $ 156,226  $ - 

ARRA - Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing Program  $ -  $ 88,333  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Moving to Work Demonstration Program  $ -  $ -  $ 4,032  $ 20,000  $ 30,940 

Passed through Housing Authority of Portland           

ARRA - Short Term Rent Assistance  $ 131,996  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Short Term Rent Assistance  $ 73,273  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through City of Portland, Portland Housing Bureau           

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants - Outstanding Loan Balance  $ -  $ 2,032,155  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants  $ -  $ 153,671  $ 994,174  $ 1,102,517  $ 1,117,197 

  2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018 

Passed through City of Portland, Portland Development Commission           

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants  $ -  $ 147,947  $ 52,500  $ 60,541  $ - 

Other Funding Sources (note: only organizations that are passing through federal awards)           

Passed through Work Systems, Inc.           

Employment and Training  $ 92,000  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

ARRA - Employment and Training  $ 19,466  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

ARRA - Program of Competitive Grants for Worker Training and Placement in High Growth and Emerging Industry Sectors  $ -  $ 112,943  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants  $ -  $ -  $ 125,000  $ 117,500  $ 26,274 

WIA Adult Program  $ -  $ 28,800  $ -  $ -  $ - 

WIA Youth Activities  $ -  $ -  $ 27,940  $ 44,632  $ 43,702 

WIA Dislocated Worker Formula Grants  $ -  $ 19,200  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Raphael House of Portland           

Family Violence Protection Program  $ 13,965  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Oregon Museum of Science & Industry           

Salmon Camp Research Team Project  $ 20,296  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Human Solutions, Inc.           

Continuum of Care Program  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 94,917  $ 106,168 

Passed through New Avenues for Youth           

Continuum of Care Program  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 7,246  $ 6,982 

Supportive Housing Program  $ -  $ -  $ 4,133  $ -  $ - 

Passed through Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization           

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 41,068  $ 57,241 

TOTAL  $ 3,240,750  $ 3,620,426  $ 2,111,273  $ 2,378,493  $ 1,832,328 

Expenditures by Level of Government   2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018  Average 

Federal Government  $ 695,369  $ 675,391  $ 353,213  $ 165,978  $ 14,655  $ 380,921 

State Government  $ 33,041  $ 63,262  $ 81,831  $ 140,392  $ 104,617  $ 84,629 

Local Government  $ 2,366,613  $ 2,720,830  $ 1,519,156  $ 1,766,760  $ 1,472,689  $ 1,969,210 

Other Organizations  $ 145,727  $ 160,943  $ 157,073  $ 305,363  $ 240,367  $ 201,895 

Total  $ 3,240,750  $ 3,620,426  $ 2,111,273  $ 2,378,493  $ 1,832,328  $ 2,636,654 

 Expenditures by Federal Department   2009-2010  2011-2012  2015-2016  2016-2017  2017-2018  Average 

US Department of Health and Human Services  $ 418,199  $ 157,976  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 115,235 

US Department of Education  $ 252,632  $ 276,569  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 105,840 

National Endowment of the Arts  $ 18,000  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 3,600 

US Forest Service  $ 6,538  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 1,308 

US Department of Agriculture  $ -  $ 128,160  $ 51,845  $ 50,511  $ -  $ 46,103 

US Department of Justice  $ -  $ 40,591  $ 46,527  $ -  $ -  $ 17,424 

US Department of Treasury  $ -  $ 37,047  $ -  $ -  $ -  $ 7,409 

US Department of Housing and Urban Development  $ -  $ 35,048  $ 12,386  $ 12,520  $ 14,655  $ 14,922 

US Department of Veterans Affairs  $ -  $ -  $ 242,455  $ 102,947  $ -  $ 69,080 

Total  $ 695,369  $ 675,391  $ 353,213  $ 165,978  $ 14,655  $ 380,921 

     

Expenditures by Service Area  2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Average

Education - General $ 272,928 $ 317,743 $ - $ - $ - $ 118,134

Education - Social Services $ 31,860 $ 54,377 $ 25,375 $ 76,613 $ - $ 37,645

Education - Arts and Culture $ 24,538 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,908

Employment $ 714,109 $ 160,943 $ 152,940 $ 164,793 $ 69,976 $ 252,552

Healthcare - Substance Abuse and Mental Health $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Healthcare - Disease Prevention and Treatment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Healthcare - IHS, Education, Social Services, Other $ 47,006 $ 279,063 $ 167,548 $ 203,075 $ 226,860 $ 184,710

Welfare - Income $ 14,025 $ 2,370,820 $ 1,113,776 $ 1,265,221 $ 1,230,347 $ 1,198,838

Welfare - Housing and Food $ 2,092,699 $ 346,525 $ 514,796 $ 502,389 $ 194,474 $ 730,177

Welfare - Other $ 43,585 $ 90,955 $ 136,838 $ 166,402 $ 110,671 $ 109,690

Total $ 3,240,750 $ 3,620,426 $ 2,111,273 $ 2,378,493 $ 1,832,328 $ 2,636,654

      

American Indian Child Resources Center (AICRC)   Detailed Expenditures of Federal and Other Governmental Awards   2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Federal Government

US Department of Health and Human Services

Administration of Native Americans (ANA) $ 168,000 $ 195,139 $ - $ - $ -

National Indian Women's Health Resource Center $ 3,750 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ -

US Department of Education

Title VII $ 48,684 $ 48,523 $ 33,937 $ 34,481 $ 39,098

National Endowment of the Arts

General Program $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -

State Government

Passed through California State Department of Education/IEC

Indian Education Center $ 200,939 $ 161,069 $ 255,704 $ 206,288 $ 213,608

Indian Education Center, Non-Prop 98 $ 16,642 $ 16,642

Tobacco Use and Prevention $ 54,167 $ 50,000 $ 48,000 $ 45,000 $ 60,000

Passed through California State Department of Social Services

Foster Care Counties (Title IV E) $ 80,334 $ 94,169 $ 323,085 $ 336,757 $ 474,298

Passed through California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES/EMA)

Child Abuse Treatment - Victims of Crime Act $ 125,962 $ 136,155 $ 89,627 $ 130,555 $ 122,936

Local Government (City, County, School Districts)

Passed through Alameda County

Social Services $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 38,828

Child Abuse Treatment $ 58,271 $ - $ - $ - $ -

2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

Team Decision Making Program (about Foster Care Placement) $ - $ 35,688 $ 38,625 $ 38,828 $ -

Passed through City of Oakland

Oakland Fund for Children and Youth $ 119,793 $ 69,000 $ 73,728 $ 50,000 $ 50,000

Tribal/Native Governments

Passed through California Rural Indian Health Board

Tobacco Education & Prevention Technical Support Center (TEPTS) $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ -

Total $ 906,542 $ 811,385 $ 862,706 $ 841,909 $ 998,768

 Expenditures by Level of Government  2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Average

Federal Government $ 230,434 $ 248,662 $ 33,937 $ 34,481 $ 39,098 $ 117,322

State Government $ 478,044 $ 458,035 $ 716,416 $ 718,600 $ 870,842 $ 648,387

Local Government $ 178,064 $ 104,688 $ 112,353 $ 88,828 $ 88,828 $ 114,552

Tribal/Native Government $ 20,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 4,000

Total $ 906,542 $ 811,385 $ 862,706 $ 841,909 $ 998,768 $ 884,262

 Expenditures by Federal Department  2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Average

US Department of Health and Human Services $ 171,750 $ 200,139 $ - $ - $ - $ 74,378

US Department of Education $ 48,684 $ 48,523 $ 33,937 $ 34,481 $ 39,098 $ 40,945

National Endowment of the Arts $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000

Total $ 230,434 $ 248,662 $ 33,937 $ 34,481 $ 39,098 $ 117,322

    

Expenditures by Service Area   2009-2010 2011-2012 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 Average

Education $ 276,265 $ 226,234 $ 289,641 $ 240,769 $ 252,706 $ 257,123

Employment $ 168,000 $ 195,139 $ - $ - $ - $ 72,628

Healthcare - General $ 3,750 $ 5,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,750

Healthcare - Substance Abuse and Mental Health $ 74,167 $ 50,000 $ 48,000 $ 45,000 $ 60,000 $ 55,433

Welfare - Income Assistance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Welfare - Food Assistance $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -

Welfare - Other $ 384,360 $ 335,012 $ 525,065 $ 556,140 $ 686,062 $ 497,328

Total $906,542 $811,385 $862,706 $841,909 $998,768 $884,262

     

APPENDIX B: CHOICE OF GEOGRAPHIC AREA, COUNTY V. METRO   

City  County  Population  Metropolitan Statistical Area  Population Difference Between Using County v. Metro 

Phoenix  Maricopa  197,805  Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale  215,133  -8.76% 

Tucson  Pima  50,605  Tucson  50,605  0.00% 

Chicago  Cook  215,172  Chicago-Naperville-ELgin  368,730  -71.37% 

Oakland  Alameda  84,020  San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward  223,629  -166.16% 

Portland  Multnomah  37,985  Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro  92,150  -142.60% 

 

   

APPENDIX C: FINANCIAL DATA AVAILABLE FROM EACH CENTER   Tucson Indian Center (TIC) 

● Federal Funding (Direct and Passed-Through) ○ Available; in Schedule of Federal and Other Governmental Expenditures 

● Other Direct Public Funding (Government and Tribal)  ○ Available; in Schedule of Federal and Other Governmental Expenditures 

Phoenix Indian Center ● Federal Funding (Direct and Passed-Through) 

○ Available; in Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards ● Other Direct Public Funding (Government and Tribal)  

○ Unavailable Native American Youth and Family Center (NAYA) 

● Federal Funding (Direct and Passed-Through)  ○ Available; in Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards 

● Other Direct Public Funding (Government and Tribal)  ○ Unavailable 

American Indian Child Resource Center (AICRC)  ● Federal Funding (Direct and Passed-Through) 

○ Available; estimated from Combined Revenues and Expenditures Statement ● Other Direct Public Funding (Government and Tribal)  

○ Available; estimated from Combined Revenues and Expenditures Statement   

APPENDIX D: ACS VARIABLES USED IN STATA  Variable  Variable in Stata  Description  Weight   Universe  NAs excluded? 

Non-hispanic whites 

non_hisp_white  if race = white (codebook) and hispanic origin is "Not Hispanic" (codebook)  

perwt  All persons  Yes 

American Indians/Alaska Natives 

racamind  if racamind = 2 (codebook) and person's race or races includes American Indian  

perwt  All persons  Yes 

High school education 

educ_hs_or_higher  High school diploma (63) or higher (codebook)  perwt  All persons  No 

Median household income 

hhincome  median total income of all respondents' households  perwt  Not group quarters, not vacant units (codebook)  

Yes (“9999999” replaced with “.”) 

Unemployment  employed  unemployed/(unemployed+employed)  perwt  persons aged 16+ (codebook for original variable)  

Yes, NA (0) and "not in labor force" (3) 

Owned home  ownershp  owned or being bought/(owned or being bought + rented)  perwt  Not group quarters, not vacant units (codebook) 

Yes, NA (0) is excluded 

Rented home  ownershp  rented/(owned or being bought + rented)  perwt  Not group quarters, not vacant units (codebook) 

Yes, NA (0) is excluded 

Medicaid health coverage 

medicaid  Has insurance through Medicaid / (has insurance through medicaid + does not have insurance through medicaid). Whether persons was covered by Medicaid, Medical Assistance, or any other assistance plan for those with low incomes or a disability. (codebook) 

perwt  All persons  No 

Private health coverage 

privatehealthcare  Has private insurance /(has private insurance+does not have private insurance). Whether persons had private health insurance coverage. The Census classifies employer- or union-provided insurance, plans purchased by individuals from private insurance companies, and TRICARE or other military health care as private coverage. (codebook)

perwt  All persons  No